History, Politics And Current Affairs

Stuart wrote:The Deadliest (Air) Warrior

In the spirit of the TV show, this thread lists combat aircraft for given eras according to a model assessment of their capability. This model works on accessible data that is common and consistent and avoids subjective impressions or ratings based on an opinion.

The model started life as revision 1.0 that featured the following rating data:

Speed - One point for every 10 mph over 200 mph

Range - one point for every 50 miles range on internal fuel plus any fuel carried in jettisonable drop tanks.

Firepower - one point for each pound of shot/shell/bullets delivered in a burst of standard length

Engine power one point for each 100 hp

Altitude one point for every 3000 ft altitude

Maneuverability points calculated by dividing 200 by the wing loading

Protection/strength Aircraft unloaded weight reduced to a standard 30 x30 foot size (effectively unloaded weight * 900 /wingspan / fuselage length) then one point for every 1,000 pounds. To that is added 2 pts for a bullet proof screen, 3 pts for an armored pilot's seat and 5 points for self-sealing fuel tanks.

It was subsequently replaced by revision 2.0 that replaced the raw engine power rating with a power-to-weight based factor.

Revision 3.0 included a penalty for aircraft that had significantly poorer roll rates than teh average due either to long wings or increased moment of inertia. Data tables are revised to comply with the latest revision although this may take a few days to implement.

Stuart wrote:What I have found is a formula for converting thrust into horsepower. Basically, its aircraft speed in ft/sec * thrust in pounds/550. I'm playing with that; if it works we can use it to include the jets (Just playing and stretching the excel sheet; an F-104G comes out at 863).

Stuart wrote:I've finally, blizzards and other things no longer in the way, sat down and looked at bombers. The following are the model criteria where they differ from the fighter model.

Cruising speed is used rather than maximum; this is because the bombers were in formation cruising to their targets.

Bombload is measured in multiples of 500 pounds; this puts the resulting figure in teh same area as other categories.

Firepower is divided by six to allow for gun power directed forward, aft, left, right, up and down. The actual weight of fire is important; there was a lot mroe to bomber defensive fire than just deterrence.

Agility is deleted. Bombers essentially didn't maneuver.

The inertia of the aircraft is now treated as a postive factor; that's because inertia = stability and that meant bombing was mroe accurate (what killed the Northrop B-35/B-49 more than any other factor was their bomb run instability).

Stuart wrote:KDahm wrote:
The bomber formula MK 1

The criteria

Speed: 1 point per mph over 200 mph using cruise speed
Range: 1 point per 100 miles on internal fuel (no Tokyo tanks)
Bombage: 1 point per 250 pounds of bombs, using the standard listed bombload
Power to weight ratio enginer power: engine power in hp multiplied by 100 and divided by max takeoff weight
Altitude: 1 point per 3000 ft maximum altitude
Strength or efficiency: MTOW minus empty weight reduced to a standard 60x60 foot size ((difference * 3600) / (wingspan * length), then 1 point per 1000 pounds payload
Defensive guns: 1 point per defensive gun, regardless of calibre (since they are mainly for deterrence anyway)
Engine penalty: Minus 5 points per engine over 2 (reflects the greater vulnerability, maintenance, and economic cost of 4 engines compared to 2)

Points of debate.

I'm not sure the engine penalty is valid. lot of four-engined birds got back on three or two engines; a high proportion of twin engined aircraft went in after losing one engine and they all did after losing two. Economic cost isn't a concern here (otherwise we'd be ina world of hurt with production hour differences) and its an open question whether four reliable but lower-powered engines are a greater maintenance burden than two high-powered but unreliable ones. The Manchester/Lancaster issue is applicable here. Also, the He-177/277.

I think the strength and efficiency issues need to be seperated. We already have a structural strength rating and we can adopt that pretty much as is (normalizing to 30 foot span/length. - the actual size of the normalized airframe doesn't matter so we should keep the existing figures where possible). Airframe strength is a critical factor; it measures the aircraft's ability to get back after taking damage.

I think the efficiency data is important enough in its own right to have a rating. (MTOW/unloaded weight)*10 might do the trick there.

It's arguable whether guns were just for deterrence. There is a critcial point here (one that killed the Luftwaffe). Fighter combat is Darwinian - the best survive and get to be very, very good and basically don;t die. Fighting bombers is random; it doesn't matter how good you are, getting caught be defensive fire is essentially a matter of chance. So, the bomber defensive guns slowly kill off the expert pilots.

Stuart wrote:KDahm wrote:
When you post the exact formula you use, please highlight the changes from my proposed model in the Fighters thread.

The changes are:

Allowing for differences in gun types used for defense. This was a major factor in the Pacific where the combination of heavy guns on the bombers and the light structure of Japanese fighters mean the losses inflicted by the bombers were significant

I reduced the bombload rating from one point every 250 pounds to one point every 500 pounds to bring things to the 1 to 20 point.

I eliminated efficiency which really duplicated data already in the system

Added in the stability factor which includes both the roll "penalty" now "lack of roll bonus" and an allowance for pitch instability. That's about it I think. Otherwise pretty much your model.

edit - oh yes, eliminated the penalty for extra engines.

Stuart wrote:Calder wrote:
The generalist approach to fighters made perfect sense to me because any one factor that was missing could be exploited by your opponent but for Bombers it seems to me that with WWII tech the no bomber can be made good enough to always get through and thus damage per sortie should be the most important characteristic.

Basically, there are three factors here. Getting through to drop the bombs. Hitting the target and thirdly destroying the target. Getting through is a combination of cruising speed, altitude,defensive firepower and armor. Hitting the target (assuming everybody's bombsights were about equal which is near enough to true) is a question of the aircraft's stability during its bomb run (St Curtis proved that) and destroying the target means carrying a large bombload.

Now, each of those three is critical. There's no point in carrying a huge bombload if the aircraft can't get through to a defended target with it (the RAF bombers come dangerously close to that paradigm). Likewise there's no point in carrying a huge bombload to a target if the aircraft doing the drop is so unstable the bombs get scattered over a vast area of countryside (the early USAAC raids came very close to that paradigm with the bombers taking wild evasive action susbtituting for lack of stability). Finally, there's no point in getting to the target and dropping accurately if the aircraft is only carrying a single small bomb. (The Germans came close to that paradigm). So, to rank as a high-class bomber, the aircraft has to do all three of those things reasonably well. They have to get to the target, drop accurately enough to be meaningful and drop enough to make the enemy's eyes water. Really the aircraft are divided up into those that did all three well (the B-29), those that diid two of them well and those that did one well. I tried this with a one point for 250 pounds and the result was that the bombload was essentially all that mattered. One might as well discard the rest. That negated two of the three basic requirements. The other problem is that there are some aircraft around that carried such heavy bombloads that the figures get to be absurd - Silverplate/Saddletree for example. But even excluding them, the four points per thousand is just too high.

Stuart wrote:Back to fighters for a moment.

A suggested minor modification based on reading that showed wing guns were often removed or not installed due to the effect they had on roll rate. Crunching the numbers suggests that each wing gun was equivalent to 1/10 of an engine. So, by increasing the roll rate penalty by 1/10 of an engine for each gun installed in a wing should compensate for this effect. This is a relatively minor change and if implemented would constitute version 3.1.

NewGolconda wrote:On engine penalty. If we are agreed that the rankings are independent of resources used at this point.

Twins are half as reliable as singles if they cannot maintain a positive rate of climb on one engine. That’s why tri motors were so common in the 1920's. From the early 1930's twins could offer a slight positive rate of climb - but a degree of caution is needed in that for much of the 1930's a twin at a full operating weight may only have the slimmest of climb rates (say 150ft/min) with full power and when brand new.

A worn 2 year service type with dinged and roughed up surface and engines slightly short of their nominal full power may be in service conditions a 0ft/min climb or -50ft/min climb. Do you want any ice on that?

Note that in these conditions, asymmetric power, more than the usual control forces being applied, pilot stress etc - a positive rate of climb does more than indicate an ability to stay in the air - it’s also indicative of the ease of replacing energy in turns etc. A skilled pilot may be able to compensate for asymmetric thrust, sacrifice height for speed to provide a margin to turn without stalling, avoid obstacles and weather and land again safe and sound. An average pilot?

I have some flight test for the Beaufort with 1200hp twin wasps – and it was exactly in that situation - 150-250ft min new, 0 to -50ft/min in service condition. I suspect these stops being a problem with higher power/performance types – B-25, Mosquito etc.

Four engines? A stable, safe configuration favoured for long range flight for many years. I am not sure why this would be penalised on anything other than resource use grounds.

KDahm wrote:DocMartyn, Page 4: B-25H
.....
Protection/strength 15

So I cranked in the strength and efficiency numbers suggested by Stuart, and I'm getting some very low values for strength that likely minimize it's contribution to the overall total. For the B25, I have an empty weight of 21,120 lbs, wingspan of 67.5 ft, and length of 53 ft. That scores to 5.3 points, or less than half the contribution of the guns. If I use the 60'x60' standard instead of the 30'x30' standard, it increases to 21.3 points. Most of the medium bombers look like they're about 60-70' x 60'. The other bombers are similar.

I give you

The bomber formula MK 1.1

The criteria

Speed: 1 point per mph over 200 mph using cruise speed
Range: 1 point per 100 miles on internal fuel (no Tokyo tanks)
Bombage: 1 point per 250 pounds of bombs, using the standard listed bombload
Power to weight ratio engine power: engine power in hp multiplied by 100 and divided by max takeoff weight
Altitude: 1 point per 3000 ft maximum altitude
Strength: Empty weight reduced to a standard 60x60 foot size ((difference * 3600) / (wingspan * length), then 1 point per 1000 pounds
Efficiency: ((MTOW minus empty weight) / empty weight) * 10
Defensive guns: 1 point per defensive gun, regardless of calibre (since they are mainly for deterrence anyway)

A representative bomber, the B17G:

Speed: 2
Range: 20
Bombage: 24
Power to weight ratio engine power: 7.3
Altitude: 11.9
Strength: 16.9
Efficiency: 8.1
Defensive guns: 13

for a total of 103.2 points

And a selection of WWII bombers are:

Boeing B29........................169.6
Boeing B17G......................103.2
Avro Lancaster....................102.6
Dornier DO217 M-1.............93.0
Heinkel HE-111...................89.9
Mitsubishi G4M...................88.9
Mitchell B25.......................88.7
Vickers Wellington...............74.6

And, unsurprisingly, the Deadliest Warrior is still.......................The Silverplate with an astonishing score of 168,089.0

KDahm wrote:Looking at this, it appears that most of the frontline aircraft for all three were essentially identical, with scores from 38 to 41. The weighted averages for the countries might be interesting, but that would involve getting production numbers for each type each year, and I don't know if those are available.

From here, it would seem to leave four factors that are not included in the rankings. Maintenance time per hour of flight, aircraft handling and performance flaws, and pilot quality can be estimated from pilot journals, flight training accident rates, and pilot hours, respectively.

The final factor is the usage of the planes and can't be readily assigned a number. That would be placement of new pilots in lower threat areas, development of local superiority, rotation of pilots to training squadrons, and coordination with ground observers.

Stuart wrote:KDahm wrote:
From here, it would seem to leave four factors that are not included in the rankings. Maintenance time per hour of flight, aircraft handling and performance flaws, and pilot quality can be estimated from pilot journals, flight training accident rates, and pilot hours, respectively.

I've done some checking up and it seems that there was a drastic difference between German and allied training practices. The British and French trained their novice pilots and put them straight into fighters once they'd soloed and then sent them to the front. The Germans trained their pilots (taking a lot more time over it), then put them into two-seaters to gain experience. Only after they had reached a set standard and volunteered for a transfer were they then reassigned to fighters and were sent for advanced training as fighter pilots. So, it would indeed appear that there was a very marked difference indeed in the ability of pilots to fly their aircraft. With aircraft as difficult and dangerous to fly as these early types, that alone may have been critical.

If we worked on the basis of one point per 25 hours flight time, it would appear thata Britosh or French newbie fighter pilot had between 10 to 12 hours training making him worth roughly 0.5 points. His German equivalent would have had anything from 150 to 200 hours, giving him 6 to 8 points. Adding that to the basic fighter score gives a fair idea of relative combat effectiveness.

The situation reverses in WW2; in 1944, typically a German pilot had 20 hours flying time when he was thrown into battle; his US equivalent had 400.

Looking at this, it appears that most of the frontline aircraft for all three were essentially identical, with scores from 38 to 41. The weighted averages for the countries might be interesting, but that would involve getting production numbers for each type each year, and I don't know if those are available.

One interesting pointer is the fight between Lanoe Hawker (in a DH-2) and Manfred von Richthofen (in an Albatross D.II). One might expect this to have been a quick and bloody slaughter but actually it was a long, hard fight which von Richthofen only just managed to win. Assuming he and Hawker were roughly equal in skill, that does suggest that their aircraft were also roughly equal. Our numbers show that.

pdf27 wrote:One interesting comparison - "Bloody April" of 1917.

UK - B.E.2c (?), F.E.2b (32.2), Sopwith 1 1/2 Strutter (38.39), DH.2 (39.43) and F.E.8(34.99)
Germany - Albatros D.II (39.88), Albatros D.III (39.68)

RFC/RNAS casualties were roughly 4 times the German ones. I can see the following partial explanations:

- Some significantly lower performance aircraft out there making an easier target.
- Majority of the fighting took place on the German side of the lines, with something like half of the RFC/RNAS shot down becoming PoWs.
- Following on from that, the Germans may have had lighter fuel loads.
- The RFC/RNAS were operating in support of an offensive and thus had to provide aerial photography. A far higher fraction of the German effort was fighter sorties - hence fewer vulnerable targets.
- UK training was poorer - and it is noticeable that they seem to have stepped up the quantity and relevance of training immediately afterwards.

Oh, and any chance of sticking the Sopwith Dolphin on there?

Stuart wrote:pdf27 wrote:
Oh, and any chance of sticking the Sopwith Dolphin on there?

It's in; second from bottom of the British list. 40.97

I did a calculation on fuel weights and the difference between fighting the German side and flying back and fighting on the German side and not having to fly back is about 120 pounds. That doesn't sound much but its a lot on those lightweight aircraft. It bumps the Albatross D.III up to a touch under 47 points.

Calder wrote:I think we may be underestimating what a difference pilot quality can really make. Also the system of adding 1 point per 25 hours means that pilot means that pilot effectiveness has a huge effect on WWI fighters but becomes meaningless for modern fighters. (ie 10 points is HUGE in WWI and meaningless in modern fighters.) Maybe instead of a straight addition of points pilots add a percentage. Something like novice pilots who barely can fly their airplanes are -10%, new pilots are +0%, experienced pilots +10%, good pilots +20% and Aces +30%.

Of course this then runs into the problem of how you determines what level a pilot is.

Stuart wrote:Calder wrote:
I think we may be underestimating what a difference pilot quality can really make.

I think what this exercise is doing is actually highlighting that importance. The example of Bloody April is very indicative of that. It now appears that the heavy losses of the RFC/RNAs weren't due to the superiority of the German aircraft but to a combination of pilot skill and the tactical advantage held by the Germans.

Also the system of adding 1 point per 25 hours means that pilot means that pilot effectiveness has a huge effect on WWI fighters but becomes meaningless for modern fighters. (ie 10 points is HUGE in WWI and meaningless in modern fighters.) Maybe instead of a straight addition of points pilots add a percentage. Something like novice pilots who barely can fly their airplanes are -10%, new pilots are +0%, experienced pilots +10%, good pilots +20% and Aces +30%. Of course this then runs into the problem of how you determines what level a pilot is.

Exactly; all too often it comes down to "+40 percent for my favorite air force." One thing might be to use a percentage increase per flying hours (say, 1.00 percent per 100 flying hours) but the problem there is its variable by type. One might argue that it isn't a bad thing of course. One could also establish a sub-zero baseline so that a pilot needs (say) 200 hours before he is able to take full advantage of his aircraft. RAF pilots had an average of around 200 hours when they joined fighter squadrons in 1940, The Luftwaffe appears to have been about the same in 1940. In contrast the Japanese pilots had around 800 hours and 500 hours was considered "inexperienced". Suddenly, a lot of things fall into place.

There is another problem of course and that's the question, is it the right sort of training? The problem in 1939/40 with the RAF wasn't that the pilots had any lack of experience but that they were trained to fight the wrong way. That is almost entirely subjective and unquantifiable.

pdf27 wrote:I did a calculation on fuel weights and the difference between fighting the German side and flying back and fighting on the German side and not having to fly back is about 120 pounds. That doesn't sound much but its a lot on those lightweight aircraft. It bumps the Albatross D.III up to a touch under 47 points.

Is that a typo? 47 .vs 40 points is a huge advantage - the Me-109B is only 52! That's enough to make me think that the difference can mostly be explained by the Germans being on the defensive and not hugely outnumbered as they were later in the war.

Stuart wrote:No typo; being over home ground makes a big difference. Depending on the exact terms of reference, the benefit for an Albatross D.III is between 3 and 7 points. The Me-109B isn't that odd; its 150mph faster but its no better armed and its turning circle is a lot greater. So, all the Albatross has to do is keep turning inside the Me-109 until the latter has to break off for lack of fuel. And it might get lucky and have the 109 cross its nose.

KDahm wrote:Unless, of course, the ME109 doesn't get into a turning fight. Almost all of the WW1 biplanes had tremendously tight turning circles, so WWII planes wouldn't want to try a level battle. Slashing attacks and diving past are the way to go, as seen in the Spanish Civil War and the early WWII fights against biplanes.

Stuart wrote:This is true of course. the question is whether the WW1 biplane could manage to keep out of the sights of the monoplane long enough. The Me-109B is at a serious disadvantage here because it is so poorly armed. It has virtually no firepower edge over the Albatross. Slash and pass requires enough firepower so that even a brief time on target will rip the enemy aircraft up. Peppering away with two machine guns really is the hard way of doing things.

Actually what this comparison does highlight is how important tactical factors are and why "in this battle, that happened" arguments have to be used with seirous caution. This one compares a fully-loaded Me-109B with a virtually empty Albatross.

Bushranger wrote:I recall reading a story about a chap in a homebuilt aircraft who flew it 'round the world during the 1970s. Simple little plane, fixed gear, slow speed. Well, he managed to stray into Syrian airspace in the course of his trip, and out came a MiG-17 to do him in - and it exhausted its ammo in trying. He made it out without getting a scratch on his aircraft. The fate of the Fresco's pilot upon returning to base was left to the imagination...

MKSheppard wrote: ↑Mon Nov 21, 2022 10:43 pm Here will be recovered data as I can find them.

This post will serve as a placeholder for the system he used if I can recover it.

NewGolconda wrote:The CR42 is a great machine, ranked against the other last generation bi planes.

Problem is though, if its ranked against its contemporaries, then you are talking about the Hurricane, Spitfire and 109.

I am sure if you built a supergaldiator with a long chord cowl, cleaned up struts and another 100 horses then it would be simmiler. Problem is though, against a 330mph fighter the other guy can dictate combat on his terms, and you are reliant on them accepting a close, slow turning fight to be effective.

A lot of bunk is written about the RAF, and in truth it was seriously more professional in almost every area than its opponants, but the one area it was not was in the development of realistic tactics. And its not as if the major tactics were not anything that succesfull wwi aces couldnt teach.

If you a Hurricane pilot in the western desert or malta, it should have been drilled into you - see a cr42 - then circle 5000ft higer and 50mph faster, and if you attack then you make a high speed pass at the tail end charlies, never slowing down and then when your clear zoom climb, regain speed and then re engage on your terms.

Would not have hurt far eastern spitfire pilots much either.

M.Becker wrote:NewGolconda, I could not agree more but from my 2nd or 3rd re-reading of "Hurricanes over Malta" I conclude the three plane Vic remaind in use in 41 and maybe early 42.

It did work well enough against the RA and that would help explain the poor showing against the LW.

The G91 was the jet and the MC202 scores so low because of the armament?

M.Becker wrote:Not as remarkable as that.

Ki-43-Ia Oscar ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 63.75
Ki-43-Ib Oscar ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 70.05
Ki-43-II Oscar ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 99.01
Ki-43-III Oscar ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 106.04

Almost +70%!

gral wrote:IIRC, the Ki-43-Ia had two rifle-calibre machine guns, while the Ki-43-III had two 20mm guns. That rises the grade a lot.

Stuart wrote:It's a perfect case of spiral development. The Ki-43-Ia was basically a Ki-27 that was about 30mph faster. Then there were a whole series of steps, replacing one and then the other 7.7mm machine guns with 12.7mm weapons, adding pilot armor, then an armored windscreen, upping the power of the engine step by step to match the increase in weight. Speed and range also went up steadily with each successive version. The Japanese Army gets a lot of criticism (most of it wholly deserved) but they seem to have managed the Ki-43 perfectly.

Stuart wrote:gral wrote:
The LaGG-3 does surprisingly well, considering how hated it was. OTOH, the MiG-3 and Yak-1 do quite worse than I thought they would.

This is, I think, a good example of why its dangerous to place too much faith in accounts of aircraft. I believe the problem with the LaGG-3 wasn't so much that it wasa terribly bad aircraft but it was completely different from anything the Russians had flown before. Up to then they had flown small, light, highly agile aircraft (remember their pilots still thought biplane fighters were viable in late 1941) with radial engines. The LaGG-3 was a beast, fast and heavily-armed but relatively clumsy. The problems with manufacturing were very real and the aircraft were seriously underpowered (witha liquid-cooled engine that froze up in winter) but those factors were just icing on the cake. I think it was the fact that the LaGG-3 was so different from previous Russian fighters that condemned it and having been condemned, all of its (many) faults were highlighted.

Poobah wrote:If I had a dime for every time I heard "That ain't the way we did it in (some other squadron) back in the day," or some variation on that theme, I'd be retired by now. Change is usually very unwelcome in military organizations.

Stuart wrote:The Japanese had this when they introduced the Ki-44 (Army) and J2M (Navy) into service. Both were high-speed interceptors, conceptually very different from the Ki-43 and A6M agile dogfighters that preceeded them. They were considered very difficult to fly so the Japanese gave them to expert pilots who proceeded to start crashing them This gave both aircraft bad reputations. Then the Japanese noted that novice pilots who hadn't flown the older aircraft weren't having anything like the same level of difficulty.

RLBH wrote:That's curious - why does the Phantom FGR.2 rank behind all marks of Lightning? Given that it's a longer range aircraft, with more missiles and a better radar, I wouldn't have expected the Lightning's speed advantage to be so overwhelming.

Johnnie Lyle wrote:Why is the Camel the highest rated of the WWI fighters? The maneuverability?

Is it possible to post the more detailed spreadsheet versions (say the individual columns for each factor in the model), to avoid us asking all these awkward questions?

Stuart wrote:Why is the Camel the highest rated of the WWI fighters? The maneuverability?

Mostly; it isn't the fastest or the most heavily armed but its as agile as the devil. This actually pleased me quite a bit because the Camel was always spoken of with awed respect and now we can see why, The aircraft that followed it show what was lost from the Camel in efforts to make it a less profligate killer of its own pilots. It wasn't really equalled until the Gamecock came along almost ten years later.

Is it possible to post the more detailed spreadsheet versions (say the individual columns for each factor in the model), to avoid us asking all these awkward questions?

I wish I could but the spreadsheet is large and the formatting is hellish.

Stuart wrote:That's curious - why does the Phantom FGR.2 rank behind all marks of Lightning? Given that it's a longer range aircraft, with more missiles and a better radar, I wouldn't have expected the Lightning's speed advantage to be so overwhelming.

What is more pleasing is that the FGR.2 is the worst of all the F-4 variants despite having the most powerful engines. This gives me a lot of confidence in the model as a whole. The Lightning scores heavily because its so massively overpowered; it has clean wings and a short span giving it a high roll rate. It also has two 30mm Aden guns (not the F.3) and an Aden Gun is not something one wishes to see the muzzle end of. The sad thing is that it has such terrible missiles. A Lightning armed with decent missiles would have been a fearsome opponent.

Stuart wrote:Winston Smith wrote:
Wasn't their a proposal to hang some AIM-9s off the Lightning?

There was, yes, but it didn't get very far. It would have cost money you see. It's possible to envisage a decision to upgrade the Lightning F.6 in the late 1970s (or rebuild earlier Lightnings that had low airframe life) with the Y-racks for a pair of Sidewinders from the F-8 on the fuselage. The big problem was still the radar. The space in the centercone is so small there's just no space in there for anything useful. Using the radar out of the F8U-2 is about as good as can be achieved. That would bump the Lightning F.6 up to around 650.

That's the real problem with the Lightning though. To get something really useful out of the design, it needs a proper radar. The only way that can be done is to go with a solid nose and use wing-root intakes. The internal plumbing for side-by-side intakes and one-over-the-other engines is nightmarish so the engines would have to be repositioned side-by-side. That means the wings would have to be moved, probably to a low position requiring a new undercarriage. The end result is an entirely new aircraft.

Stuart wrote:Poohbah wrote:
The Lightning was probably the ultimate daylight guns interceptor EVAH! unfortunately, it was in a world that was rapidly going to all-weather BVR. (Italicized part best spoken by Don LaFontaine.)

Looking at the charts, that's a perfect summary. The British produced aircraft justa little too late. the Hunter was the best gun-armed subsonic fighter ever built - but it appeared just after the rest of the world went supersonic. The Lightning was probably the ultimate single-seat interceptor - but it appeared just after the rest of the world went to all-weather, missile-armed interceptors.

The Americans, on the other hand, probably jumped the gun a little. They tended to produce aircraft just before the state of the art was mature enough to make them fully serviceable. The F-102, F-104, F-106 and B-58 probably all fall into that category. So did the B-29 by the way.

Stuart wrote:Winston Smith wrote:
The Mig-31BM and the Su-30MK are way more deadly then you'd think. Any reason for this?

They're fast and heavily-armed; the Su-27 is very agile, the MiG-31BM is VERY fast and carried a formidable armament.

The Yak-38, Yak-141 and Mig-29MK aren't up .

Navy aircraft. The Yak-141 won't be included. Not enough accurate data.

DocMartyn wrote:http://www.16va.be/mig-29_experience.htm

Negatives

"The employment of the MiG-29 suffers from severe inherent constraints. The most obvious limitation is the aircraft’s limited internal fuel capacity of 3500-kg (4400 kg with a centreline tank). We have no air-to-air refuelling capability, and our external tank is both speed and manoeuvre limited. We also have only a limited number of tanks.

"But if we start a mission with 4400-kg of fuel, start-up, taxy and take off takes 400-kg, we need to allow 1000-kg for diversion to an alternate airfield 50-nm away, and 500-kg for the engagement, including one minute in afterburner. That leaves 2500-kg. If we need 15 minutes on station at 420 kts that requires another 1000-kg, leaving 1500-kg for transit. At FL200 (20,000 ft) that gives us a radius of 150-nm, and at FL100 (10,000 ft) we have a radius of only 100-nm.

"Our navigation system is unreliable without TACAN updates and is not very accurate (I’d prefer to call it an estimation system). It relies on triangulation from three TACAN stations, and if you lose one, you effectively lose the system. We can only enter three fixed waypoints, which is inadequate. We also can’t display our ‘Bullseye’ (known navigation datum, selected randomly for security). For communications we have only one VHF/UHF radio.

"The radar is at least a generation behind the AN/APG-65, and is not line-repairable. If we have a radar problem, the aircraft goes back into the hangar. The radar has a poor display, giving poor situational awareness, and this is compounded by the cockpit ergonomics. The radar has reliability problems and lookdown/shootdown problems. There is poor discrimination between targets flying in formation, and we can’t lock onto the target in trail, only onto the lead. We have only the most limited autonomous operating capability.

"We don’t have the range to conduct HVAA attack missions - and we’re effectively limited from crossing the FLOT (Front Line of Own Troops). Our limited station time and lack of air-to-air refuelling capability effectively rules us out of meaningful air defence missions. Nor are we suited to the sweep escort role. We have a very limited range, especially at high speed and low altitudes, and are limited to 540-kt with external fuel. We have navigation problems, Bullseye control is very difficult and we have only one radio. So if I talk, I ‘trash’ the package’s radios!

"The only possible missions for NATO’s MiG-29s are as adversary threat aircraft for air combat training, for point defence, and as wing (not lead!) in Mixed Fighter Force Operations. But even then I would still consider the onboard systems too limited, especially the radar, the radar warning receiver, and the navigation system as well as the lack of fuel. These drive the problems we face in tactical scenarios. We suffer from poor presentation of the radar information (which leads to poor situational awareness and identification problems), short BVR weapons range, a bad navigation system and short on- station times."

Positives

"But when all that is said and done, the MiG-29 is a superb fighter for close-in combat, even compared with aircraft like the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18. This is due to the aircraft’s superb aerodynamics and helmet mounted sight. Inside ten nautical miles I’m hard to defeat, and with the IRST, helmet sight and ‘Archer’ I can’t be beaten. Period. Even against the latest Block 50 F-16s the MiG-29 is virtually invulnerable in the close-in scenario. On one occasion I remember the F-16s did score some kills eventually, but only after taking 18 ‘Archers’. We didn’t operate kill removal (forcing ‘killed’ aircraft to leave the fight) since they’d have got no training value, we killed them too quickly. (Just as we might seldom have got close-in if they used their AMRAAMs BVR!) They couldn’t believe it at the debrief, they got up and left the room!

"They might not like it, but with a 28deg/sec instantaneous turn rate (compared to the Block 50 F-16's 26deg) we can out-turn them. Our stable, manually controlled airplane can out-turn their FBW aircraft. But the real edge we have is the ‘Archer’ which can reliably lock on to targets 45deg off-boresight.

"I should stress that I’m talking about our Luftwaffe MiG-29s, which are early aircraft. They also removed the Laszlo data link and the SRO IFF before the aircraft were handed over to us, so in some respects we’re less capable than other contemporary MiG-29s. From what we hear the latest variants are almost a different aircraft. I’d like to see our aircraft get some of the updates being offered by MiG-MAPO. The more powerful engines, better radar, a new navigation system, a data link and an inflight refuelling probe. If we got the new ‘Alamo-C’ that would also be an improvement - even a two nautical mile boost in range is still ten more seconds to shoot someone else! We won’t get many of those improvements, though we are getting a new IFF manually selectable radio channels, and improvements to the navigation system, including the integration of GPS. Most of our aircraft will be able to carry two underwing fuel tanks, which will also help."

Stuart wrote:gral wrote:
I suppose what rises the Yak-9T's grade is firepower, correct?

That's right. The Russians really liked the heavy gun in the nose of the P-39. The basic P-39 armament was retained by the Russians (with 23mm cannon replacing .50 Brownings) right up to early-production MiG-19s.

Stuart wrote:DocMartyn wrote:
Negatives/Positives...{snip}

All that (dropping the hyperbole) really confirms the validity of the model we're using. The effectiveness of a modern fighter really lies in its missiles rather than its inherent capability. Our numbers show that as missiles get better and aircraft carry more of them, they become the dominant factor in assessing the aircraft.

Stuart wrote:Winston Smith said:
Jesus Christ, the Raptor is lethal!!

There's a big technology jump from the F-15E to the F-22, about 20 years of very rapid development. I may put in the F-15SG which is a half-way step between the two. Another thing that makes a huge difference is missiles; I got hold of a number of real-life hit percentages, graphed them and the results were eye-opening. What we are seeing here is how missiles started as an addition to aircraft and eventually took over as the primary value determinant. For all the F-22s capability, an F-22 without missiles will lose to an F-16 with them.

KDahm wrote:In that case, the best solution may be to change ranking methods after a certain date. Fighters would be gauged based on their guns and any short range missiles useful in a dogfight. Long range missiles would be judged based on the missile and launching platform radar in a separate table.

Something like:

AIM-9F XXX
AIM-9L XXX
AIM-54C & AWG-9 (F14) XXX
AIM-120B & AN/APG-79 (F18E/F) XXX

That would also insulate the ratings from the number of missiles carried, because it's possible to put 12 or more AMRAAMS on a airframe, even if it usually carries 4.

KDahm wrote:Stuart wrote:
I may well rejig the above to do that. The only problem is that the "basic" aircraft without any missiles in some cases leaves the aircraft without any air-to-air at all. But, I can put allowance in for varying missile loads.

In that case, the aircraft is a missile platform only and has a value of 0.0 in a dogfight or short range situation. Due to range, I would consider the AIM-9 as a dogfight capable missile included in the "basic" aircraft, but the AIM-7 and AIM-120 as separate. In that case, I think the missile should be rated in terms of "Cannon Equivalents".

From the perspective of a long range missile, does it care whether it's launched from a F4, Tornado, F22, MiG 29, or Boing 737, as long as the radar system is compatible and the aircraft has a matching hardpoint?

MStockwell wrote:Why is the F4U-4 rated lower than the F4U-1?

The -4 was rated by the F4U pilots to be the best fighter of the entire series. The F4U-4 had the same gun armament as the equivelant F4U-1 (either 6-.50s or 4-20mm), a more powerful engine and a better propeller giving it both a higher top speed and a significantly better climb rate.

The only time Corsairs fought each other, the F4U-4 shot down 2 FG-1s (and 1 Cavalier P-51). No Corsair of any model was ever lost to a P-51.

Stuart wrote:It's the range that does it. The F4U-4 had signficantly shorter range than the F4U-1. The dash-four is faster and has a higher ceiling but they don't offset the shorter legs. This is something that doesn't come out from pilot's reminiscences and subjective opinions but range means an aweful lot in the way of options (and also means a boost in performance when the plane is carrying less than a full fuel load).

Dirk Mothaar wrote:Why is the F6F-3 rated so far below the F4U-1? If range has to be considered, I would think that ease of operation ought to be considered as well. The Hellcat was easy for a 22 year old recent flight school grad to master and the Corsair...well, the Corsair wasn't called the Ensign Eliminator for nothing.

Stuart wrote:Why is the F6F-3 rated so far below the F4U-1?

It's faster and has longer range. It's just that bit better across the board

If range has to be considered, I would think that ease of operation ought to be considered as well. The Hellcat was easy for a 22 year old recent flight school grad to master and the Corsair...well, the Corsair wasn't called the Ensign Eliminator for nothing.

Can you put a number on it that isn't subjective?

This is a comparison of aircraft so they have to be compared at standard conditions. Same weather, same pilot and so on. What this allows us to do is identify where other factors are important. For example, if this rating system shows two aircraft to be almost identical yet in a given situation the kill ratio was heavily skewed in favor of one, that's a pointer to (for example) a pilot skill differential or some other factor.

The Bushranger wrote:The Pirate would actually be an example of that. On paper here, it looks a good bit better than the FJ-1, and nearly as good as an early Panther. But IIRC around 90% of F6U production flew precisely once: from the factory to the storage facility for disposal as maintenance aids and targets...because it was full of bugs and about two years too late.

Stuart wrote:The problem the F6U-1 had (and the FJ-1) was that they were introduced a fraction too late. The F6U-1 really didn't get around until 1949 when it was passe - the comparison is really with the F9F-5 rather than the F9F-2. Timing really was critical in this era; the first casualties were the last piston-engined aircraft which were outlassed by the new jets and then the slightly later jets (the 1946-47 era ones) that weren't advanced enough to compete with the swept wing aircrat that had decent engines.

I'm not sure that the "difficult to fly" consideration is actually that important. In 1945/46 the F4U was replacing the F6F very fast and the Hellcats were disappearing from carrier groups as quickly as Corsairs could be found to replace them. If the easy to fly issue had been of much interest, the Hellcat would have lasted longer in peacetime. It cost money to replace the F6Fs with F4Us and money was desperately short in 1946/47.

Stuart wrote:Dirk Mothaar wrote:
I can't because I don't have the data but I'm sure the data exists. I assume accidental loss rates for both aircraft are available somewhere and I would think that comparing those in 1943 and 1944 would be a useful (and objective) data point.

It's not so easy to find. I did a search and found lots of assertions that the F4U had a higher accident rate but nobody produced numbers to back it up. I did find a comment from a 1944 Pax River survey that found operational pilots preferred the F4U over the F6F 61 percent to 31 percent. I also found the following comment about the F4U "Light and comfortable stick forces, good performance, adeqaute stall warning and docile behavior at the stall made it the Weapon of choice amoung those tested."

Even if we do manage to get the data for these two aircraft, we then have to get the same data for every other aircraft in the world. It's just not possible. Also, I don't think its important. The final comment was made by the USN who got rid of the F6F in favor of the F4U just about as fast as they could. That tends to confirm the ranking we established.

Stuart wrote:Dirk Mothaar wrote:
I think the relevant data point is that in 1943 and 1944, the USN chose the F6F-3 over the F4U-1 and only in 1945 did the USN pick the much higher performing F4U-4 over the F6F-5 and then only when faced with Kamikazes on a mass scale. When the F6F-3 and the F4U-1 competed against each other, the F6F-3 won hands down and the F4U-1 was relegated to land-based use.

That's not quite what happened. The U.S. Navy didn't choose the F6F over the F4U; the development difficulties of the F4U were such that the F6F was available and the F4U wasn't. That isn't actually the fault of either aircraft, it reflected the fact that Grumman was a much more efficient and better-run company than Vought and it started pouring aircraft off its production lines much earlier and in much greater quantities. the time when the USN had a choice was 1945 when they could decide which aircraft they'd keep. They chose the F4U.

This doesn't change the basic problem though. Although we've got a lot of subjective assertions that the F6F had a much lower accident rate, I've found no numbers to back it up. The perception seems to reflect the early stages of the F4U development period when it was a very hot ship (the rival was the F4F) and was pushing the state of the art. That did cause a troubled development period. However, the 1944 comment is critical. This shows that by that time (when both aircraft were available in numbers, the F4U was the preferred option not the F6F). Also, we come back to the basic issue here. We're trying to devise a model which can be used to provide an objective rating of large numbers of aircraft. For that, we need standard data for those aircraft and our model is built around using consistent data. We cannot, therefore, include information that is obscure, hard to come by and only available for a small percentage of the aircraft included.

NewGolconda wrote:SeaFury vs Bearcat has been one of the most pointless, but competitive and controversial this vs that.

I see hear the Seafury has it all over the Bearcat, 25 points clear of the vanilla version, and a dozen from the improved model.

Stuart wrote:Noce to see these long-running arguments resolved isn't it? This is actuallya good example of how this model works by assessing the overall value of an aircraft "everything considered" rather then cherry-picking data that suits a pre-determined conclusion.

pdf27 wrote:I assume the difference is down to the cannon?

NewGolconda wrote:It can't be all down to the cannon, as the improved bearcat had 4 by 20mm too.

Stuart wrote:It's pretty much everything - the Sea Fury is faster and has a higher operational ceiling, more power from its engine and is better armed. Really I can't see much justification for claiming the Bearcat has any kind of edge over it.

KDahm wrote:Also, the SeaFury was operational a full year after the Bearcat. In this period, that makes a big difference.

NewGolconda wrote:This model is not too kind to short ranged interceptors, like the Bearcat. But then again the SeaFury is not a lot more than a short ranged interceptor either.

Bearcat was supposedly one of these pilot friendly easy to fly aircraft like the P51 or Sabre, which is hard to quantify in a numerical analysis, then again the SeaFury was hardly a slouch in this regard either.

The SeaFury has to rate as one of the most successful conversions to set off carriers. It's even more amazing when you consider the Fury is a complex evolution of land based aircraft that did have plenty of nasty habits.

Stuart wrote:The Bushranger wrote:
Unless of course the Bearcat is cheaper, which is irrelevant to a 1v1 performance metric, or is "tougher" (Grumman Iron Works, after all) - which is something that really can't be quantized; the 'weaker' aircraft might survive a brace of badly placed cannon hits while the 'tougher' one could fireball from a single Golden BB...

The model does include "toughness" in that we take the empty weight of the aircraft and normalize it to an "aircraft" of standard size. This assumes that aircraft toughness is a function of its structural weight (which will also include armor) and thus the more structural weight, the tougher the aircraft. (Thus, if two aircraft have identical weights but the first has a wingspan of 30 feet and a length of 30 feet while the second had a wingspan of 40 feet and a length of 40 feet, the first will be tougher than the second). This does seem to work; American and Russian aircraft came out tougher than average, Japanese less than average with the Germans and British as average.

M.Becker wrote:NewGolconda wrote:
I see hear the Seafury has it all over the Bearcat, 25 points clear of the vanilla version, and a dozen from the improved model.

Yes but also take into consideration the relative difference.

F8F-2 …………………………………………………………………………... 138.40
Sea Fury ……………………………………………………………………. 151.87

The 13.47 point lead makes the Sea Fury 9.7% 'better' than the Bearcat.

Gladiator …………………………………………………………. 59.93
Hurricane I (40) …………………………………………………. 73.49

The two planes are also 'just' 13.5 points apart but the relative difference is 22.6%.

I wonder how much or rather little the Fury's lead would have meant in battle.

The Bushranger wrote:
Unless of course the Bearcat is cheaper, which is irrelevant to a 1v1 performance metric, or is "tougher" (Grumman Iron Works, after all) - which is something that really can't be quantized; the 'weaker' aircraft might survive a brace of badly placed cannon hits while the 'tougher' one could fireball from a single Golden BB...

The whole 'Grumman Iron Works' fame is IMO the result of the absurdly weak armament Japanese planes had when the war began. A pair of .30 cal. machine guns couldn't even deva.state a Devastator, while a couple of 20mm HE shells easily killed a Wildcat. In this case both planes have the firepower to reliably destroy the other. The right armament depends on what you are shooting at.

M Stockwell wrote:On the subject of Bearcat vs any other fighter, production ended in May, 1949, by which time 12 squadrons were equipped with the F8F-2 and 12 squadrons were equipped with the F8F-1. Within 2 months, the USN began withdrawing F8F-1s from frontline units. The last Bearcats in service were F8F-2Ps withdrawn in late 1952.

By contrast, the F4U stayed in production for the USN (USMC AU-1s) into 1952. The final F4Us (F4U-7s for the French Navy) rolled off the assembly line in Dallas, TX in December, 1952.

F4U-4s and F4U-5s were very prominent in the Korean War. As far as toughness, I don't think the Bearcat was really a typical product of Grumman aircraft. It was essentially designed as a lightweight version of the Hellcat able to operate from escort carriers. The smallest fighter that could be built around the R-2800 engine.

I might also point out that the "Gulfhawk IV" was lost to a landing accident at Elizabeth City, NJ. I believe there was a failure of the landing gear. Again, not typical of products of the "Ironworks". "Gulfhawk IV" was Al William's last Gulfhawk, one of 2 civilian G-58As that Grumman built. These were not ex-F8Fs, they were purpose-built civilian aircraft. No armament, no armor, no tailhooks, etc.

BTW, M. Becker all versions of the A6M had 2 20mm cannon and 2 MGs. The A6M was the F4F's principal fighter vs fighter opponent, not the Nakajima Ki-43 which had only 2 MGs.

DaveAAA wrote:The rating for the Buffalo doesn't seem to match it's performance in combat against the Japanese.

The F2A-3 has a rating of 102.02, the Ki-43Ib Oscar, 70.05 and the A6M2 is 100.93. They should have pwned the Oscars and been competitive with the Zeroes, but they were not.

ByronC wrote:The Buffalo was pretty much gone before the allies figured out how to do air combat properly. Remember the Zero's reputation, compared with it's ranking. The Wildcat was redeemed because it lasted longer in service.

pandionutv wrote:The Zero A6M21 had essentially the same armament as the Messerschmitt Bf-109E (variants with cannons), although the Zero's cannons were slightly inferior to the MG FF's of the Bf-109. I dare say that nobody has argued that the Bf-109 did badly because of its armament ...

If you compare some key figures for the Buffalo, the Zero and the Wildcat, you'll see that they were not too badly matched. For instance, the Zero was handicapped by a comparatively weak engine. Of course, you have to take note of the characteristics of the various sub-models that showed some important differences.

Pandionutv wrote:Bouncy70 wrote:
And the Finnish did very well indeed with their Buffaloes, suggesting that it was not such an inherently hopeless aircraft as its Pacific performance alone could lead one to believe. If you try to turn and burn against an Oscar in one, well, you are dead...

DaveAAA wrote:
The Finns were also fighting the Soviet "B" Team. As their "A" Team were pretty crappy compared to Western pilots, it's not surprising the Finns did so well..

Your statement is true in a general sense, in particular for the period 1941 - 42. The great expansion of the Red Air forces during the war was, among other things, based on a tremendous production of new pilots with very varying abilities. Regarding the Buffalo in Finnish service, it should be noted that:

* it always fought against a numerically superior opponent

* from 1943 onwards the Red Air forces fielded fighters with performance superior to the Buffalo

* the Buffalo had a kill ratio of 26 - 1 for the whole of its Finnish service life and still managed a ratio of better than 4 - 1 during the intense fighting in the summer of 1944 (17 kills, of which four La-5s, against four losses against Yaks and P-39s)

* in the summer of 1944 the Red Air forces had a significant numerical and qualitative (planes, not pilots) advantage to the Buffaloes, which had then served since the spring of 1940 and were clearly showing the effects of wear and tear

I would conclude that with experienced pilots and tactics appropriate to the opposition the Buffalo would have done better against the Japanese in 1941/42 - just like the Wildcat eventually did.

NewGolconda wrote:F2A-3 added extra weights for armour self sealing tanks etc and as a result it experiences high rates of operational losses from landing gear collapse etc. Its not really sustainable as a USN 1942 carrier fighter.

F2A-2? score of 98 but we remember this is an analysis based purely on firm, objective numerical data. Would you mentally adjust points based on some of Brewsters production issues?

If you read up on USN flight training in references like "The First Team" etc it’s pretty clear the USN was putting 200 hours into its pilots doing basic, intermediate and advanced training, then posting them to their operational type for squadron training including formation work and tactics for another 200 hours.

The Commonwealth, early in wartime was putting in 150-175 hours of basic - intermediate - advanced training for fighter pilots and positing them to operational squadrons in secondary theatres with 0-12 hours on type. They were expected to learn on the job.

In Malaya the Buffalo squadrons had a handful of experienced pilots including BoB veterans, but they were the squadron leaders. Furthermore they were mostly British and there were issues with the British Australian and New Zealand aircrew not communicating. Furthermore the Buffalo to hand were fitted with second hand reconditioned engines and there was a lack of spare parts. They should have been putting 100 hours time on type in the second half of 1941, and picking up tactics and experience from their leaders. Instead only the squadron test pilots got anything like those hours in, while the British and dominion pilots spent most of their time socialising - separately. The 0.50 cal guns were good but there was no good quality 0.50 cal ammunition in Singapore and the guns jammed. Armorers made field mods to fit four rifle calibre guns but this was done in small numbers and most of the converted machines were moved at the last minute to Burma just before the balloon went up. They were forward deployed chaotically in penny packets to poorly prepared strips where the was no food for the ground crews for days, and where days of maintenance used to make a half dozen machines operational could be wasted in a single flight when poor weather or navigation caused whole flights to write off their planes. These were squadrons destined to fail even if they had been equipped with the F4U. See” Bufaloes over Singapore” for a truly depressing catalogue of woe. These are all subjective factors not in the ratings.

Brutus wrote:I was going to throw in my two cents worth while this conversation was still 'hot', then thought the better of it since I had several books on the Buffalo on order (and found a few more online, too) and I wanted to see what else I might find out. Good thing I waited as I learned some more details about the aircraft.

The rating for the Buffalo doesn't seem to match it's performance in combat against the Japanese. The F2A-3 has a rating of 102.02, the Ki-43Ib Oscar, 70.05 and the A6M2 is 100.93. They should have pwned the Oscars and been competitive with the Zeroes, but they were not.

The reason that the F2A scores so high is due to the aircraft's long range. The F2A-1 and -2 carried a normal load of 110 gallons of fuel in two wing tanks (55 gallons each) plus 50 gallons of fuel of reserve fuel in the lower (reserve) section of each wing tank (25 gllons each). The various model's ranges are (main/main + reserve): F2A-1 - 1,095/1,545 miles, F2A-2 - 1,015/1,670 miles and F2A-3 - 965/1,680 miles. Don't ask me why each suceeding model flies a lesser distance on 110 gallons and still manages to fly farther on 160 gallons of fuel.

In addition, the -3 could carry an additional 80 gallons of fuel in two 20 gallon wing leading edge tanks and one 40 gallon ventral fuselage fuel tank. Buffaloes built for foreign service apparently used the entire contents of the port wing tank for a normal fuel load of 135 gallons + 25 gallon reserve.

And the Finnish did very well indeed with their Buffaloes, suggesting that it was not such an inherently hopeless aircraft as its Pacific performance alone could lead one to believe. If you try to turn and burn against an Oscar in one, well, you are dead...

Looking at my sources suggests that the majority of the Buffalo kills were Polikarpov I-115s and I-16s. Both aircraft were even more obsolete than the Buffalo. It did seem to have a pretty good record against the Hawker Hurricane, but I would note that the Hurricane was as old (as a design) as the Buffalo was.

In Malaya, at least early in the campaign, many of the Buffalo kills in fighter vs. fighter combat were Nakajima Ki-27s - another obsolete type.

F2A-3 added extra weights for armour self sealing tanks etc and as a result it experiences high rates of operational losses from landing gear collapse etc. Its not really sustainable as a USN 1942 carrier fighter. F2A-2 score of 98 but we remember this is an analysis based purely on firm, objective numerical data. Would you mentally adjust points based on some of Brewsters production issues?

NG - It should be noted that there are essentially three types of F2A-2.

The first is the XF2A-2 prototype, BuAer number 0451, the remanufactured XF2A-1 prototype. Its armed with one .50-caliber MG and one .30-caliber MG in the fuselage, it did not have wing mounted MGs. The R-1820-40 engine and Curtiss Electric cuffed prop added 375 pounds to the aircraft weight, which required that the fuselage be shortened ahead of the wing. Weights: 4,131 lbs. empty, 5,409 lbs. gross, 5,643 lbs. maximum TO.

The second type is production aircraft 1 through 29. They differ from the XF2A-2 only in the installation of two .50-caliber wing-mounted MGs (three .50-claiber and one .30-caliber MG total). The .50-caliber MGs weigh 64 pounds plus ammo each according to one source (no, none of the sources is Wikipedia).

The third type is production aircaft 30 through 43. These aircraft standardised the armament at four .50-caliber MGs and added bomb racks for two 100 lb. bombs. They were also fitted with self-sealing fuel tanks made of Linatex and horsehide. They were apparently also fitted with some armor protection, most likely the armored seatback for the pilot and at the front of the wing spar over the entire width of the fuel tanks. Weights: 4,576 lbs. empty, 5,942 lbs. gross, 6,890 lbs. maximum TO.

The F2A-3 features a lengthened fuselage ahead of the wing (for CG reasons), the additional fuel mentioned earlier in my post and additional armor protection for the pilot. I've concluded that the -2 has some armor protection because E.R. Johnson, in United States Naval Aviation 1919-1941, states that the Buffalo had 400 pounds of armor. The problem is that the empty weight of the F2A-3 is only 156 pounds more than the last versions of the -2 (empty), so some of that protection had to be incorporated in the -2 aircraft #30-43. Weights: 4,732 lbs. empty, 6,321 lbs. gross, 7,159 lbs. maximum TO.

ByronC wrote:I'm amazed how potent the F-111 is. Point wise, it beats the B-1B, and comes close to the Tu-160. Also, why does the FB-111 rank so low compared to the rest of the family?

Stuart wrote:F-111A ………………………………. 582.44
F-111D ………………………………. 621.22
F-111E ………………………………. 627.42
F-111F ………………………………. 706.06
FB-111A …………………....……… 592.66

It's not that low compared with its sibling generation F-111A/D/E. It's the F-111F that was a long way ahead and that was virtually a second generation Aardvark.

The FB_111 was loaded down with fuel and weaponry; basically, the gain in points it got from its added range and weapons load didn't compensate for the performance penalty. Also, its electronics were a generation older than the F-111F.

The Aardvark was a formidable beast all right. We lost a lot of capability when it was retired.

Poobah wrote:Any thoughts on how the proposed FB-111H would've scored?

Stuart wrote:Not really I'm afraid; since it never flew, we don't really have any reliable data on it. I suspect that it would have come out in the low 700s, having the same edge over the FB-111A as the F-111F had over the F-111A. That's a subjective guess though.

KDahm wrote:I'm surprised by how low the A-6 scored - is that function of low speed, or of compromises to be able to launch it from a carrier.

Also, shouldn't the A10 be listed? It's payload is somewhere in the low range, but other comparables are.

Stuiart wrote:The A-6 is clobbered badly by its low speed. The A-10 is probably a medium-light bomber (that is, a medium bomber that gets used like a light bomber). The medium-heavy is a poor man's strategic bomber; the medium light is a rich man's light bomber.

Chris Methewson UK wrote:Any particular reason why the Rafael falls behind the EF Typhoon? And, for that matter, why do they both fall behind the F-18E?

Stuart wrote:In the first case, there's no specific reason, just the cumulative effect of small superiorities. It's a 3 percent difference which is tiny.

Stuart wrote:The F-18E is much better armed than either. As we've noted before, up at this end of the table, aircraft are basically platforms for their missiles.

Chris Methewson UK wrote:Will that change when the Meteor comes into service next year or is that an unknown quality?

Stuart wrote:Meteor is an unknown quantity at this time. The figures for Typhoon, Rafale and the F-22 have a large margin for error in them because the data on them is suspect.

The Bushranger wrote:Do the asterisks mean anything, or were they parts of the designations?

I find it interesting that the Mirage IIIC and the Mirage 5 have essentially the same score, despite the former being the radar-equipped intereceptor and the latter the radar-less mudhen. I assume this is because the IIIC only really carried a single missile?

Stuart wrote:The Bushranger wrote:
Do the asterisks mean anything, or were they parts of the designations?

DAMN. I knew I had forgotten something

* = naval aircraft (some of the types listed are pretty obscure so I indicated naval aircraft)

** = type built for the export market only. Not used by the French armed forces. In the 1920s and 1930s, the French aircraft industry built some aircraft that were only ever sold to export customers.

I find it interesting that the Mirage IIIC and the Mirage 5 have essentially the same score, despite the former being the radar-equipped intereceptor and the latter the radar-less mudhen. I assume this is because the IIIC only really carried a single missile?

It's an intriguing example of how different things balance out. The Mirage V is radarless but the radar carried by the IIIC wasn't very good - it had a short range and a narrow scan arc. It was also optimized for engaging targets that were flying above the interceptor and its capability against low-flying aircraft was abysmal. Finally, the IIIC carried pretty bad missiles that were short-ranged and inaccurate. The V was lighter, flew higher and carried more, better missiles (four heatseekers as opposed to one virtually useless radar-homer).

What our figures don't show is that the IIC and IIIE were maintenance hogs while the V was much easier to look after.

Stuart wrote:James1978
Where does the Mirage 2000D place?

It's just an N that has the ability to deliver precision-guided conventional munitions.

Nomad990
Any change of getting the Mirage 4000 added?

Not really I'm afraid; too much of the data is "manufacturers estimates" or too vague for use. Also, some key elements simply aren't available. I'm really sorry, but I don't think I can do that one.

TimboW wrote:Circa 1989-1990

RAF Fighters = 151451.01
Tornado F3 x 132 x 646.07 = 85281.24
Phantom FGR2 x 119 x 480.19 = 57141.42
Phantom F4J(UK) x 15 x 601.89 = 9028.35

Fleet Air Arm = 19558.56
Sea Harrier FRS-1 x 42 x 465.68 = 19558.56

British Total = 171009.57

Armee d’ Aire Fighters = 196123.16
Mirage 2000N x 15 x 664.72 = 9970.8
Mirage 2000C x 60 x 684.31 = 41058.6
Mirage F1C x 151 x 575.68 = 86927.68
Mirage IIIE x 122 x 519.34 = 58166.08

Aeronavale = 32292.79
F-8E x 27 x 435.77 = 11765.79
Super Etendard x 65 x315.8 = 20527

French Total = 216380.16

Nooooooo!!! Say its not true

Stuart wrote:I must admit, I never thought of using these figures that way, but it's certainly an interesting way to assess relative air force strengths. Very interesting indeed . . . . .

TimboW wrote:Just for fun:

2012

Armee de l’ Air = 123236.8
Rafale x 70 x 937.11 = 65597.7
Mirage 2000-5F x 37 x 739.31 = 27354.47
Mirage 2000C x 19 x 684.31 = 13001.89
Mirage 2000-N x26 x 664.72 = 17282.72
Aeronavale = 36639.9
Rafale x 30 x 937.11 = 28113.3
Super Etendard x 27 x315.80 = 8526.6

French Total = 159876.7

RAF
Typhoon x 86 x965.88 = 83065.68

Getting a bit cheaty….
Hawk x 157 x363.92 = 57135.44
FAA
Hawk x 12 x363.92 = 4367.04

Getting desperate…
BoB Memorial Flight
Hurricane IIc x2 x117.92 = 235.84
Spitfire (various, let’s say Mk XIV) x6 x126.60 = 759.6
RN Memorial Flight
Sea Fury x1 x151.87 = 151.87
Sea Hawk x1x190.55 = 190.55

British Total = 145906

But hang on, how about orders?
On order Rafale x80 x937.11= 74968.8
Final French Total = 234845.5
On order = Typhoon x 70 x 965.88 = 67611.6
Final British Total = 213517.6

Damn close, but….. Aha I forgot about Dave-

On order up to; F-35x138 at some mysterious value, let’s call it 1000, but maybe as few as half that, say F35x70x1000 = 70000

At last! French 234845.5 British 283517.6, well by 2020-something, perhaps.

Stuart wrote:gral wrote:
What about the MS.450 and the D.551? IIRC, both had flying prototypes before France surrendered.

Same comment really, not enough solid data, too much "manufacturers's estimates". I stretched a point with the MB.157 but I'm very wary about prototypes that had only very limited flight times and never got close to mass production. Basically, the German manufacturers ruined things for everybody with grossly overstated estimated performance data.

Usually what happens is that weight and drag goes up after the prototype is flown and performance goes down quite steeply. Then more engine power is added to compensate and that drinks fuel faster. Looking at the figure, its interesting to note how some aircraft appear to actually go down in rating as they are "improved". Not always though and sometimes production aircraft outperform prototypes.

NewGolconda wrote:The alternative is that the model is under sensitive to differences in speed that are small in absolute terms but large in relative terms, and over sensitive to differences in wing loading which was increasing at a significant rate through the 20's while other factors like armament were static.

If you consider the Bulldog for example to late WWI british fighters, it has a 30% speed advantage, and more than 100% more power. It can dictate the terms of any combat, and disengage at will. There are no terms other than pilot incompetence where a camel can successfully engage a Bulldog, for example and a sipe. Is only marginally better.

These numerical analysis are fantastic, and appreciate the effort calculating and posting them, but if you get ragged results, around the margins of the population there is a need to reassess.

Stuart wrote:NewGolconda wrote:
If you consider the Bulldog for example to late WWI british fighters, it has a 30% speed advantage, and more than 100% more power. It can dictate the terms of any combat, and disengage at will. There are no terms other than pilot incompetence where a Camel can successfully engage a Bulldog, for example and a Snipe is only marginally better.

I would challenge that analysis. The problem is firepower; essentially fighters in this era didn't have any. Two Vickers guns firing through the prop arc is barely better than a single Lewis gun mounted on the upper wing. The German Spandau's were significantly better than the Vickers but none of the WW1 machine guns were really suited. Also, they had very little in the way of gunsights; effectively they were aimed by a simple ring-and-bead. So, the fighters (everybody's fighters) were weakly armed and the pilot had to be a really good shot to use what little firepower he had. In air combat terms, it means he had to get in a sustained burst from close range. In order to do that, he had to dogfight. Under these constraints, speed actually wasn't a vital factor (it's notable that in WW1, the fighters that had a 15 or 20mph speed advantage showed no real benefit in combat capability and the feared fighters (The Camel and the Triplanes) were actually slightly slower than average. What seemed to matter was agility and the ability to take punishment (the former benefitting British fighters, especially the Camel, the latter the Germans which were tougher than the Allied aircraft).

Certainly the Bulldog et al were faster and could thus refuse combat - but that gets them nowhere. Its conceding air superiority. In a dogfight, the freakishly maneuverable Camel would clean their clocks. Speed doesn't really confer much of an advantage to the later aircraft. Now, looking at the data, something is very obvious; the post WW1 aircraft were much heavier in terms of both empty and loaded weight. They were also larger and more stable. In other words, they were more durable and easier to fly. That's where the extra engine power went.

I think what this data is telling us is why and when air combat desiderata changed. In the 1920s and early 1930s, agility was what mattered, fighters did dogfight. Then, in the middle and late 1930s, firepower started to climb rapidly, gunsights developed into something useful. Sometimes it isn't obvious; for example simply replacing the Vickers guns with Brownings (or their equivalents) almost triples the weight of fire. Putting the guns in the wings where they don't have to fire through the prop arc gives a 30 percent increase in weight of fire (and that's conservative - for some aircraft it was closer to 50 percent). This was the point when gun-and-run tactics became valid. Some air forces adapted to that, some didn't.

KDahm wrote:What was the first fighter able to carry two Browning M2's or equivalents in the wings? That would put a date on a transition point from agility to firepower.

Stuart wrote:The real change seems to have come in the late 1930s when people started supplementing the nose .30s with wing guns. The U.S. was unusual in that they went to two .50s in the nose first and then reinforced them with two (and then four) .30s in the wings. Most people had the heavy guns in the wings. What seems to have been important was the spread of armor plate on aircraft. Killing a target with .30s meant scoring a critical on either the pilot or the fuel tanks. Since (for most pilots) where the bullets hit was a random distribution over the airframe, the more bullets that hit the aircraft, the greater the chance of a critical hit (that was why the shift to the Brownings and their equivalent was so important. That's also why in the early 1930s, there was no functional difference between a .30 and a .50). What this meant was when the fuel tanks and pilot were protected by armor resistent to a .30, the survivability of fighters went up greatly. It's interesting to note that the "standard U.S. fighter armament" in the 1939/540 era was two .50s and four .30s. which was good for anti-fighter work. The bomber destroyer (the P-39) had that plus a 37mm for use against bombers.

NewGolconda wrote: I would challenge that analysis. The problem is firepower; essentially fighters in this era didn't have any. Two Vickers guns firing through the prop arc is barely better than a single Lewis gun mounted on the upper wing.

Apologies if the following reads as a bit of a lecture to people who certainly have a very good knowledge of these topics – but I am trying to structure it this way, going back to first principals as much to organise my argument as anything else… well here goes.

Certainly the armament of the whole generation of fighters from 1917 to the mid 1930’s is weak, but on the other hand, it was a pretty commonly shared weakness.

The Bulldogs problem as seen at the time was a lack of performance – or too small a margin, or no margin at all over the new generation of light day bombers like the Fairey Fox or Hawker Hart, that used closely cowled cast block V-12’s like the Curtiss D-12 or RR Kestrel to achieve small frontal area – the radials couldn’t really compete from this point on until the introduction of NACA cowls or Townend rings.

A “fighter” needs to be able to defeat its opposite number and establish air superiority, but it also needs to be able to intercept and destroy bombers. By the late 1920’s the Bulldog was in trouble in this regard but a Camel or even a Snipe has no chance – they have a very small margin of speed against even the lumbering heavy bomber transports at cruise power and they cannot even touch a Hawker Hart, while a Bulldog really needs an advantageous position, ahead with an altitude advantage.

Fighter vs Fighter?

The way I visualise a successful fighter in this guns and propeller era is this.

1) It needs to be able to make successful attacks, against fighter and bomber both.

2) It needs to be able to evade an attack by enemy fighters.

The massive swarming dogfights of either WWI and WWII appear to have accounted for a relatively small portion of total victories in air combat. The opportunities are simply too fleeting to be very effective. Most successful attacks are against tail end Charlies or previously damaged aircraft and often the defeated aircraft doesn’t even see the aircraft that got them. So I would disagree with this statement. Certainly the Bulldog et al were faster and could thus refuse combat - but that gets them nowhere. It’s conceding air superiority. In a dogfight, the freakishly manoeuvrable Camel would clean their clocks. I would argue that air superiority is won in campaigns over weeks or months, and assuming equal resources are committed with comparable professionalism with comparable geographic or strategic advantages, the fighter that maintains a positive win loss ratio will carry the day – over the long haul.

If we are comparing a Camel to a Bulldog in the late 20’s then then in the first instance the Camel will not be able to make successful attacks against either fighter or bomber in all but exceptional circumstances – it lacks the necessary performance. Having made an attack both the Bulldog and the Camel face the problem of weak armament, offset by the fact that their targets are flimsy, and highly flammable.

When attacked – a Bulldog can evade either through speed and acceleration – in level flight or through pushing the nose over – or it can try and outturn. It’s only really necessary for a fighter to have one area of superior performance to offer itself an ability to disengage when at a disadvantage. The camel can, without a doubt out turn* just about anything flying, in the mid 1920’s or in any other time. Of course while out turning an opponent and reversing their attack is a beloved tactic of dogfights – its not the best way to evade through a long wartime campaign, as a successful manoeuvre still leaves the evader low and slow and vulnerable to new attacks. Pushing the nose over and out accelerating (assuming you have the advantage in acceleration and Vmax) leaves most potential attackers behind, and gives the evader the ability to subsequently zoom climb, then re-engage or decline combat on their own terms. **

The topic of performance vs manoeuvrability in fighters is an old one. And in the context you raise it (1918 Camel vs slightly faster choices) the tactical choice can be a valid one. I would add another era that we have discussed here more than once – mid to late 1930’s late bi planes vs early monoplanes – where there was perhaps a 30-50mph (<10-15%) speed advantage, often a climb advantage to the bi-plane etc where the slower in a strait line but more nimble choice might be the right one. Or you could go to say a Vietnam era style, fight where political restrictions, poor reliability of intended advanced weapon systems and inappropriate tactics might leave a Mig-17 achieve a close to parity exchange rate with much higher performance machines.

Of course, in most of these examples through a long campaign, and the development of suitable tactics – the higher performance platform normally asserts its advantages.
In this case – Camel vs Bulldog*** I believe the gap is simply too large 115mph vs 174mph for the comparison to be valid. The Camel simply can’t do the job.

The Bulldogs speed advantage is of use – it can make an attack at any time of its choosing and it can evade at any time. Some pilots would no doubt get drawn into turning matches with their much slower opponents, but natural selection would soon weed them out. Meanwhile Bulldogs, using effective tactics would be picking off tail end Charlies, or isolated machines that are slow and low, so that the Camel squadrons would suffer day on day attrition to the point that they ceased to be effective units after a few weeks in combat. Meanwhile the enemy bomber force would be having a field day, with only accidental losses and minor losses to AA fire.

If the model ranks a Bulldog at 42.9 and a Camel at 44.08 – there is a problem in the model.**** This was always going to be an issue around the margins when the choice was made to try and produce a unitary model that covers all eras. No sensible mid 1920’s military, either at the time, or with the benefit of hindsight is going to order a Camel over a Bulldog – or issue a specification that resulted in a more modern and safer Camel – with priority so highly favouring sustained turn over level speed.

*Important to note here that a “turn” actually covers different aspects - high sustained turn rates, often synonymous with low wing loading, and hence easily captured in a numerical modelling exercise – and instantaneous turn – synonymous with roll rate – which can be partially modelled with wing span, but whose subtleties in terms of wing stiffness, aileron size, attachments and control arrangements – are more difficult to model.

**It is for this reason that I prefer say – an F4F-3 to an A6M for a long air to air campaign.

*** Its ironic here that the Bulldog quickly had the tables turned on it – with a 30mph (>15%) speed deficit vs newer biplane fighters like the Fury – and left trying to rely on its supreme agility.

**** Without having a close look I suspect its something to do with the anomalously low wing loading, indeed total weight of the WWI machines – the model making virtues out of necessities.

Calder wrote:WOW, I would NEVER have guessed that Poland would have the highest rated fighter outside of the united states in the 1930s!

ByronC wrote:I'm surprised how low the Me-109s rank. The Gladiator and the F3F are ranked higher. I know that the aircraft was improved later, but I remember it being looked upon as one of the best fighters around when it came out.

M.Becker wrote:The Me-109 before the E version had Jumo engines with ~700hp and only some RCMG.

The PLZ 24 had a 970hp engine and 2x20mm plus 2x8mm but she was still slower than an Me109 A-D.

What surprised me is the low score of the Hurricane and that the Hawk is the top scorer.

Borys wrote:Poland had quite good planes in the early to mid 1930's.
But a couple of bad decisions made around 1936 and the weakness of the industry/ general backwardness of the country led to the country becoming technologically 2nd tier by '39.

M Stockwell wrote:The original Hurricane Is (and Spitfire Is) had 2 blade wooden fixed pitch propellers.

The P-35, P-35A, P-36, F3F-1, -2 and -3 all had metal 3 blade propellers, starting with controllable pitch and then graduating to constant speed propellers. Still the world standard for maximizing engine performance.

The early Merlin engines were seriously compromised by their propellers.

Engines have to be designed to be able to use anything more advanced than a fixed pitch propeller.

The Hurricanes and Spitfires were finally upgraded with new engines and 3 blade constant speed propellers.

Fixed pitch propellers were the standard in WW I. The P-26 changed that in the early 1930s. Why the RAF was so slow to adopt them is a mystery to me.

Horsepower comparisons really mean very little when comparing an aircraft with a fixed pitch prop to one with a constant speed prop. The fixed pitch prop limits the utility of the engine's power except in whatever flight regime it is designed for. The constant speed prop maximizes the utility of the engine's power in all flight regimes.

M.Becker wrote:*sound of dropping penny*

Right, it's mentioned in "Spitfire" and "Hurricane". The latter even went to France with to blade props and variable pitch props were introduced at just before the BoB began.

JPaulMartin wrote:The Scimitar is shockingly better than all of the other postwar British jets. I was also surprised to see how close the Sea Harrier FRS.1 was to the F-4K.

Stuart wrote:JPaulMartin wrote:
The Scimitar is shockingly better than all of the other postwar British jets.

This is true although a lot of the score is due to its phenomenal gunpower. It's essentially an F-100 with the gunpower of an A-10. I spent a lot of time looking at the data to make sure it was correct; teh Scimitar seemed the sort of anomaly that causes problems in a model of this type.

In a way though, the sad thing is that its not a lot better than it was; despite its engine power, it's still subsonic and it has no radar. It's four AIM-9s and those Aden guns make it a very useful clear weather interceptor but that's all. A developed Scimitar would probably have been an excellent competitor to the F-4. In many ways, its like the Lightning; both aircraft had a lot of potential that went unrealized. The Lightning was fast and agile but poorly armed; the Scimitar slow and relatively clumsy but very well-armed. Both aircraft needed a radar worth the weight it would absorb.

I was also surprised to see how close the Sea Harrier FRS.1 was to the F-4K.

This didn't surprise me so much, its hugely over-powered and very agile so it makes a very nasty dogfighter.

Nightwatch2 wrote:This didn't surprise me so much, its hugely over-powered and very agile so it makes a very nasty dogfighter.

It surprises me. A supersonic vs subsonic is an interesting match up of dynamics. A supersonic fighter can take A LOT of energy into a fight that the subsonic cannot, and also has the advantage of engaging and disengaging at will.

So those relative scores do surprise me. I would have given the nod to the F-4K over the Harrier, even though both have otherwise similar armament and avionics (F-4K does have significantly larger weapons' load)

Now, if one is factoring in deployment options (small deck vs big deck, off road vs BIG Airfield with Long Runway) then I can see the number shift. But if pure air to air when in the air - I think that one is a bit of an anomoly.

Stuart wrote:Remember the F-4K is the slowest, shortest-ranged and most sluggish member of the F-4 family it's a different story against something like an F-4J or F-4S. (I have a vague memory that the British actually purchased some ex-Navy F-4Js and were startled by the difference). The Sea Harrier is very, very agile and that does make up somewhat for its lack of speed - especially under circumstances were the other aircraft have to come to it. But, an F-4J weighs in at 601 points and an F-4S at 689 which does give them substantial advantages over the 465-point Sea Harrier.

Nightwatch2 wrote:that makes a bit more sense. The Spey engines (besides being made in the UK!!) supposedly had a faster spool up from low RPM wich gave it a bit more surviviablity when trying to come aboard the (middle) Ark Royal. We did a fighter exchange between them and Indy - our guys were impressed with that close aboard handling. but of course left them in the dirt everywhere else.

JPaulMartin wrote:Quote:
A developed Scimitar would probably have been an excellent competitor to the F-4. In many ways, its like the Lightning; both aircraft had a lot of potential that went unrealized. The Lightning was fast and agile but poorly armed; the Scimitar slow and relatively clumsy but very well-armed. Both aircraft needed a radar worth the weight it would absorb.

What sort of engines for the developed Scimitar? Also, would it need a new wing?

We've talked about the Lightning before; you've mentioned that it could have had 4x Sidewinder with a little more money but that the nose cone prevented it from having a big radar. Would it be possible to move the inlets back and get a bigger nose cone without moving the engines? I had a brainstorm: could the lower engine be fed by a belly intake and the upper engine be fed by a dorsal intake, those avoiding the need for the plumbing to connect side intakes to vertically stacked engines? Could such a plane then get a big nose radar and Sparrow (Skyflash?) and be more or less and XF8U-3 equivalent?

Stuart wrote:JPaulMartin wrote:
What sort of engines for the developed Scimitar? Also, would it need a new wing?

I'm not sure what it was about the Scimitar that slowed it down so much. The U.S. Navy used to remark that only the British could put that much power into an aircraft and still have it fly subsonic.

We've talked about the Lightning before; you've mentioned that it could have had 4x Sidewinder with a little more money but that the nose cone prevented it from having a big radar. Would it be possible to move the inlets back and get a bigger nose cone without moving the engines? I had a brainstorm: could the lower engine be fed by a belly intake and the upper engine be fed by a dorsal intake, those avoiding the need for the plumbing to connect side intakes to vertically stacked engines? Could such a plane then get a big nose radar and Sparrow (Skyflash?) and be more or less and XF8U-3 equivalent?

Frankly, I suspect it would be simpler to redesign the fuselage with the engines in the right place. Putting the engines one over the other was just dumb (although the reason was logical; the upper jet actually replaces a rocket motor.) I suppose the intake system you describe could be done - its essentially an F-107 and F-16 having sex. But, there are simpler ways of doing things.

Poobah wrote:When I look at the Scimitar, one thing I notice is that the fuselage cross-section looks awfully big--that had to induce a lot of drag.

Winston Smith wrote:If I remember correctly, the Scimitar wasn't area ruled, hence the slowness. Those quad 30mm Adens sure packed a punch, didn't they?

The Bushranger wrote:Winston Smith wrote:
If I remember correctly, the Scimitar wasn't area ruled, hence the slowness.

Actually, it was, although apparently the area ruling wasn't ideal.

Those quad 30mm Adens sure packed a punch, didn't they?

As I said in the RAF Fighters thread:

Whatever happens, we have got: The Aden Gun, and they have not.

...frankly I'd rather have a brace of Adens than a Vulcan.

Stuart wrote:The Bushranger wrote:
frankly I'd rather have a brace of Adens than a Vulcan.

So would I; not least because with multiple guns, if one jams, the other(s) keep going. But, the sheer gun firepower of the British fighters is scary. An Anglo-American F-106 with four Aden guns in its belly bay is a fascinating thought.

Stuart wrote:NewGolconda wrote:
On the SeaVenom, I have the FAW 22 with a more powerful engine, a better radar, and various detail improvements, so why the drop in score? There was a significant weight penalty with the bigger radar?

It's slower and although the engine develops more thrust, its maximum horsepower is less. It has lower ceiling, shorter range and the missiles weight it down further. This is something very common with the first generation of missile carriers; the weight of the missiles mroe or less offsets the gain in lethality from them.

NewGolconda wrote:The attacker and SeaHawk should definitely change places.

They might have shared the same engine and the same max speed at sea level, with the attacker 800lb lighter, but....

The Attacker was a nasty tail dragger with the horrible laminar flow wing of the spiteful. It handled poorly and landed poorly, it had a limiting Mach of roughly 0.80 at altitude, and it would never carry the loads a SeaHawk could.

The SeaHawk could carry nearly 4000lb more in MTOW, its critical Mach was more like 0.84, which didn't make a difference at SL ( lack of thrust for the weight?) but did at 30,000ft. It was a pleasure to handle, and to land and was very manoeuvrable, as well as being very handy and stable as an interdiction platform with both rockets and bombs, the Germans even managed to hang a radar off one in a pod, the Nene 103 was also good for a few hundred extra pounds of thrust.

Stuart wrote:I'd phrase it differently; the factors you quote - easier handling and so on, explain why the Sea Hawk was the preferred aircraft despite the nominally superior rating of the Attacker. A lot of the elements you list (the tail-dragger layout, poor landing and handling capabilities and so on) aren't numerically expressible so they have to be put to one side. Neither aircraft was particularly good at load-carrying but bomb load isn't considered here (I'll probably do a chart sooner or later).

One thing I have to do is make a correction to the Sea Hawk's range. That'll probably bring it up substantially.

It did; correcting the range brought it up to 194.48, a little under four points better than the Attacker.

Stuart wrote:Winston Smith wrote:
How does the Sea Vixen FAW.22 look with quad 30mm Adens instead of the rocket pack?

I don't know, The problem would be weight and volume. The addition of gunpower would be dramatic but its effect on aircraft performance would probably offset most of it. Also, I would have to question whether the Sea Venom would have the volume needed to carry the four Adens plus ammunition. This was a big problem at this time; the MG-213 was a classic example. It was a superb gun but its impact on the aircraft carrying it was pretty unpleasant and it needed a much larger aircraft than the fighters available.